Ubisoft’s DRM scheme may have angered the wrong group of people, as the software publisher’s servers were attacked again last night.

The company, who also experienced attacks on their servers over the weekend, took to their Twitter account “about 19 hours ago” (in Twitter time) to announce, “Our servers are under attack again. Some gamers are experiencing trouble signing in. We're working on it and will keep you posted.”

About five hours ago the company reported that, “Login servers were partially reestablished at 10pm CET and fully restored at 1am CET. The attack affected only those trying to login.”

Ubisoft’s DRM scheme, utilized on the current releases Assassin’s Creed II and Silent Hunter 5, requires an Internet connection to launch and play a game. Not being able to access Ubi’s login servers means that gamers would be unable to play their title.

In responding to the problems with its servers over the weekend, Ubi claimed that “95% of players were not affected.” They also initially tried blaming their server woes on “exceptional demand,” before coming clean and admitting that they were the target of hackers.

Let me give an example. I absolutly support and would myself strike a woman who is about to kill people. However, I am also against violence to solve any sort of minor disagreement. The same way, if me killing someone would be the only way to prevent someone from killing or raping others, I'd do it. However, if it's after the fact and that person is now incapable of commiting that same action again, it would be pointless.

Now we are comparing preventing people from enjoying entertainment they paid for for a couple of hours to make a point (not unlike a manifestation that blocks a street). That is nowhere close killing said persons and then saying that any and all demands unmet would bring even harsher violences.

See the degree of difference here? Please tell me you do and while you might not agree with the action, you will stop refering to it as "terrorism", because, frankly, if someone is terrified because he can't play his new game, well...

People are allowed to cry "fascism!" when a government is (wrongly) worried about video games and their effects on people, they're allowed to cheer for criminals DDOSing Ubisoft, they're allowed to make the stretch that people who buy the game are actively supporting Ubisoft's DRM, and that therefore they deserve not being able to play because of these attacks, but as someone who actually suffers from all this, I'm not allowed to use hyperbole? And are you blind? What I SAID is that it's terrorism because they wish to instill fear that people will stop buying Ubisoft's games instead of pirating them, because attackers will make it so they can only play the games if they pirate them (which is a step further than DRM, which "only" makes it more difficulty to play the games). This isn't people saying "change your DRM, or we will no longer buy your games", this is people saying "change your DRM, or we will make it so that no one will ever buy your games, because we'll just make sure they can't play if they do."

So you know what? Fuck all of you and your holier-than-thou attitudes. I paid for the game, and I have the full right to be pissed off at people who try to prevent me from playing it, even for a short period, to further their agenda - and unlike what others are saying, in this case, that's NOT Ubisoft.

Of course you're allowed to use hyperbole. It just makes you look like an insane jackass.

And after that post, you can add "hyperventilating" to the description.

Bellowing a bunch of histrionic nonsense is no way to defend your viewpoint, despite what cable TV pundits may lead you to believe. Your argument has merit, so maybe you should try defending it logically and cogently instead of shrieking about how everyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist.

Read the comments of the people supporting these attacks. Compared to them, I'm perfectly sane. But thanks for illustrating my point that people are accusing Ubisoft of something, yet supporting actions which are just as bad.

And I don't actually think people who disagree with me are terrorists (in fact, I've never said anything like that, I just made an INCREDIBLY sarcastic statement comparing supporting these attacks with supporting terrorism, because I'm pissed off by claims that I should be thanking people for limiting my ability to play because they're trying to prevent something which might happen and don't believe Ubi's claims that it won't, and claims that I deserve to be punished for buying the game, or claims that because I bought the game instead of pirating it, I shouldn't be allowed to play it, but pirates should). But apparently only people who agree with you are allowed to use sarcasm. So far, I still haven't sunk to the level the people supporting the attacks have sunk to. If you criticize me, you should criticize them too. But hey, they're on your side, so who cares how crazy their statements are, right?

EDIT: for the record, I made a perfectly simple and clear response to Cavalier's comment. These attacks aren't a case against Ubisoft's DRM. The DRM itself is. Hey, guess what? I hate this DRM too. But that doesn't mean I support damaging my gameplay to make a point.

"Ubisoft deserves to suffer for its mistake, but the gamers don't. (Unless they knew about the DRM scheme and bought the game anyway -- but it's not like that information is published on the box, and not all gamers read the gaming press.)"

So because I decided to buy the game knowing about the DRM, you say I deserve to suffer. Do you see how that upsets me?

But the only way to make Ubisoft (the Matrix) suffer is through these methods, which has some casulties. You are not prevented from playing the game, you can easily pirate it or get a crack to get around the online activation, you're just choosing to stick with Ubisoft's method and are, in effect, walking into the line of fire (Neo's punches/bullets).

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

You might want to peruse a few history books to find examples of people who brought about positive change and the betterment of society and the treatment of others by breaking the law.

Hmmm, the Colonists' Tea Party at Boston? Oh, they were breaking English law.

Ghandi? Yep, broke the law.

Rosa Parks? Oh dear, she did, too.

Judas Priest? Oh, just threw that in for the giggle of it.

Those are just a few of the more easily recalled examples that are oft-cited in regards to unjust laws being enforced.

It would behoove you to understand that just because something is said to be the rule, to be the law, to be "the right thing," does not automatically make it so, and any time such is said of any concept being exercised, it should be so with careful scrutiny and consideration of what does truly amount to "right" versus "wrong" without having to indulge nor descend into moral relativism.

The simple fact is that Ubisoft's implementation of their form of DRM amounts to a punishment of the legitimate customer in the name of "fighting piracy" and the fact that it is so grievously flawed is being highlighted by their claimed DDoS attacks upon them. It amounts to you paying for a game that you do not even own, as per the current wording and enforcement of DRM, but is a glorified rental that you can and will only play at the behest of Ubisoft and the reliability of their service and technology.

When people comment saying I should not be allowed to play Assassin's Creed II because I paid for it, I can throw around as much "absurd hyperbole" as I damn well please, and I will still be more grownup than they are. And for the record: by the reasoning I use, twisted around by other people, I'm someone living in a fascist country who gets shot by rebels for not rebelling, because they claim I'm supporting it. By my own reasoning, I'm someone whose car gets set on fire by people who are angry at the police for instating a curfew, or something equally absurd.

Let's compare Ubisoft to the Matrix. Arguably a facist society, since the people in the Matrix (you) are being used only for their resources (Money), and don't really have a say in how they actually want to play, unless you are approached my Morpheus and make the choice to not play by the Matrix's rules. (Pirates). Now, in the process of trying to stop the evil machines' (Ubisoft) inhuman harvesting process (DRM) and targeted extermination of the non-complying humans (Pirates), Neo and Trinity end up causing some collateral damage and killing a few innocent people along the way (You, and players like you). Remember, even though some people died horrible deaths (Not being able to play the game), the actions of Neo and Trinity managed to improve both the virtual world (Ubisoft's games) and their inhabitant's lives (Ubisoft's Customers), as well as the Real world, with the non complying humans (Pirates), allowing all parties to live in harmony with one another.

Therefore, you are really only a necessary casualty in the greater process of trying to stop abusive DRM before it spreads too far.

No, because the Matrix is slavery, not fascism, and Neo and Trinity don't argue that everyone in the Matrix is passively supporting the regime and therefore deserves to die anyway. Your analogy only applies if you're claiming that if you can't free slaves unless you kill some of them, you'll just have to kill some of those slaves.

LMAO.. I love how seriously you responded to that.. The point of that particular comment flew right over that dull little head of yours, and I am thoroughly entertained by that fact. Clearly, you aren't the brightest bulb in the room.

I like how you say you want to "play insane hyperbole", but feel the need to insult me for deciding to play along with your pathetic little game. I got your point perfectly, I simply pointed out your hyperbole was flawed compared to mine.

WOW.. I actually need to spell it out for you, don't I.. The whole point was TO USE flawed hyperbole, since you seem so very willing to do it too. It was supposed so over the top that nobody could take it seriously, to illustrate how stupid you look when you do it.

I'll repeat myself: I got the point just fine. I simply decided to play along with your petty little game, after which you assumed I was too dense to understand it, and decided to insult my intelligence, and after I revealed that I did in fact understand it, you continued insulting my intelligence, rather than taking the effort to understand what I was saying, thereby proving which one of us is really the stupid one. Since you probably won't be able to understand what I just said, I'll summarize it:

You're the idiot. I knew all along. I simply decided to respond seriously (which isn't the same as taking it seriously), rather than "lol" at your pathetic little game.

If by backtrack you mean "point out something which should have been obvious, and also pointed out that I already pointed it out", then yes. Glad we understand each other.

And hey, you're the one saying that if Ubisoft doesn't get rid of the DRM, they'll alienate paying customers because other people are hindering their gameplay. If anything, I decided to speak in a language you're more familiar with.

Assuming this attack was real, and not say, a case of arrogant negligence in the part of Ubisoft assuming their system was up to snuff when it wasn't, it's still plenty justified and you're a fucking idiot for thinking otherwise.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Gelly's getting on his high and mighty moral horse again. Frankly, what Ubi is doing to their customers is worse than any attack anyone can orchestrate on their servers. I hope the attackers keep it up until Ubi cracks.

Frankly, the only way to get the company to stop it's abusive business practices is to expose the flaws in their strategy. These attackers are doing the general consumer base a valuable favor, despite the inconvienence suffered by Ubi's paying customers.

"it's still plenty justified and you're a fucking idiot for thinking otherwise."

Wow, Calling me a "fucking idiot. That proves a point. Oh, wait, it doesn't. In fact, there isn't even an argument. I don't agree with you, therefore, I'm evidently a "fucking idiot". Nice to know you aren't even capable of making anything that could resemble a point.

@Vald:

"Gelly's getting on his high and mighty moral horse again."

Vald's insulting people who don't believe in the same things he does again. All the while lacking in any originality. I am not trying to be somehow morally superior. I have made no assertion to the fact. I had an opinion on the hackers action. And, somehow, you find that this is some way to look morally superior?

To continue, I don't see how, when one immoral act is commited, that you can justify another immoral act to deal with it. It makes no sense. You know what, lets try that out. Everyone, if you see something you don't like or think is wrong, no matter how controversial the issue, commit what is normally immoral to combat it. Don't worry, according to Valdearg and Darksaber, it's justified. Don't like a law? Attack the senators that could approve of it. Are you Pro-Life? Shoot up a hospital. Squimish? Just cut their power or inconvience them through illegal actions. Pro-Choice? Commit vandalism to destroy the effectiveness of your opposition.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

I think this is a point where our prospective moralities diverge, much like many, many other issues. I don't see what the hackers are doing as immoral, and I certainly don't think they are the scum of the earth. Morally grey, perhaps, but like I alluded to in a different comment, I thrive in the morally gray. I don't see a lot of issues as cut and dried moral or immoral, like it seems that you do. There is always a gray area, and this issue is about as morally gray as it gets.

Is inconvieniencing Ubi's paying customers to prove a point morally right? Probably not. However, as far as I'm concerned, the greater point they are trying to make is probably worth the temporary inconvienience that those customers are suffering.

That's the thing about morality. It's relative. I see as what the hackers as doing as wrong. While I wouldn't call them "scum of the earth", but as you may have already guessed, I don't care for them, at least when their intention is to cause damage. You say I see moral issues as cut and dry. What do you mean? Everyone has an opinion on what is right and wrong. I just can't see a justification. You do. I have my reasoning. You have yours. Now, we could have a discussion on the subject.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

In responding to the problems with its servers over the weekend, Ubi claimed that “95% of players were not affected.” They also initially tried blaming their server woes on “exceptional demand,” before coming clean and admitting that they were the target of hackers.

Gamepolitics forgot to mention that after saying this, Ubisoft´s nose enlarged by 12-inch.

As much as I hate to say it, I'm loving this. It sucks for the customers stupid enough to buy a game with Ubi's crappy DRM, but hey, it's their fault for either being uninformed or not caring enough to worry about it. Ultimately, this is Ubi's fault.

Yes, the hackers are actually causing the server outages, but i'd imagine it's only to expose the horrible DRM for what it is, and Ubi is the one who decided to go with it in the first place. If the attackers keep up the pressure, Ubi will be forced with a few choices: Either patch their DRM away, or alienate the customers who purchased their software. Not to mention the possibility that customers might be able to sue Ubi for a "Defective Product." I would LOVE to see a Class Action lawsuit filed against Ubi as the result of these attacks.

I, for one, applaud the attackers for the work they are doing to expose Ubi's punative DRM and corporate greed, and hope that Ubi learns a very hard lesson from this experience.

So I guess me not having a PS3 or 360, and being willing to pay for this game and put up with the DRM because I really want to play it and I know my internet connection is reliable enough, means it's okay for people to prevent me from playing a game I paid for?

The only people I want to sue is the shits who decide that I'm not allowed to play a game I paid for, and the people cheering them on like they're revolutionaries standing up to the nazis. Ubisoft isn't responsible for criminals abusing a safety measure to deny people service. You don't sue malls because some psycho decides to turn the sprinkler system into a death trap, do you? You sue the psycho.

"So I guess me not having a PS3 or 360, and being willing to pay for this game and put up with the DRM because I really want to play it and I know my internet connection is reliable enough, means it's okay for people to prevent me from playing a game I paid for?"

Unfortunately, what you want isn't really my probem. As far as this attack goes, if Ubi's DRM wasn't there, the inconvienience suffered by those who purchased the game would be negligible. The blame for your issues lies not with the attackers, but with the company who made your game. The attackers only exposed the very issue that most people have had with Ubisoft's DRM, that if Ubi's servers go down for whatever reason, hackers, network issues, or so called acts of God, you won't be able to play your game.

Frankly, you should be thanking the attackers for attempting to get Ubi to change their policies. It will hopefully make all of our gaming experiences better, in the long run. Just think of what would have happened if nothing had happened for a couple years, Ubi released several new games with identical DRM, and then something happened that stopped support for them all. Nipping the problem in the bud is easily the best choice, here.

"The blame for your issues lies not with the attackers, but with the company who made your game."

BULLSHIT.

The blame for my issues lies with the attackers. THEY are the ones who are causing people to not be able to play. You don't expose faulty airport security by smuggling a real bomb onto a plane, do you?

"Frankly, you should be thanking the attackers for attempting to get Ubi to change their policies."

By hurting my ability to play the game? Hell no. If people go around hurting others because they want to force a change in policy that they believe will be better in the long run (or in your case, apparently, because of something they think will happen eventually), only a sociopath would expect the victims, even if they would like the change in policy, to say "gee, thanks for hurting me". DRM makes playing more difficult for paying customers, but these attacks make playing impossible for paying customers. The cure is worse than the disease here.

I find it telling that apparently nobody can defend Ubisoft without comparing a DDoS attack to mass murder. And yet it's the anti-Ubi crowd who you describe as unhinged and incapable of understanding the situation.

That is true. The paying customers are victims of Ubi and its lame ass DRM system and draconian polices designed to determine when and how you use the product you like to think you purchased. This is so because the situation is that Ubi's system is designed to take away many of your basic customer rights as possible.

I haven't seen any commenter in this thread say anything like "Paying customers are criminals." There is, literally, only one party in this entire mess who is treating paying customers like criminals. It's not the commenters, and, whether you agree with their actions or not, it's not the people attacking Ubisoft's site. Ubisoft is absolutely the only party here who is behaving as if people who purchased its game are (at least potential) criminals.

While "criminal" may have been an overreaction on my part, the fact remains that people have claimed that the customers deserved the downtime, and people have been excited about the attacks. I think the DRM is stupid, but I decided to buy the game anyway. According to what other people have said here, that means I should be thanking the people who attacked the servers, and it means I deserved suffering from these attacks. People have also placed the responsibility for the attacks solely with Ubisoft, and stated that the attacks are no different from Ubisoft itself bringing down the servers for maintenance, effectively claiming the attackers are not responsible for the attacks. Busy as you have been with denouncing or ridiculing me for my anger, you seem ignorant of the fact that the atmosphere here has not only been hostile against Ubisoft, but also against those who paid for their games.

I'm not hostile against you in the slightest. At least not for buying Ubi's game. I just don't feel sorry for you, because you knowingly bought a product with flawed DRM, and regardless of when or how, it's an absolute certainty that Ubi's server would have gone down at some point, and you'd be suffering just the same.

Blaming the Hackers is no better than blaming the weather or some other random event for the downtime. The fact is that the downtime will prevent you from playing the game regardless. This is Ubi's fault.

And that is exactly where I disagree with you. You say "Ubisoft is responsible for the risky situation with its servers, so it's responsible for the consequences of the attacks". The idea that even a small part of the blame may lie with the hackers seems foreign to you. However, the fact is this: Ubisoft may have messed up, but the hackers attacked the servers, knowing the system was flawed, and knowing people who paid for the game would not be able to play as a consequence of their actions. How can I not blame them? They are much more to blame than Ubisoft for this, who simply forgot to make their system DDOS-resistant, but you are only blaming Ubisoft, so why shouldn't I only blame the hackers? If the servers go down because of the weather, or some other random event, Ubisoft is only partially to blame. If Ubisoft takes down the servers, Ubisoft is entirely to blame. If someone else takes down the servers, Ubisoft is, again, only partially to blame. If A doesn't make S resistant against X, and B does X on purpose, B is more to blame than A. Taking only the result into regard, and not the causes, seems weird to me.

EDIT: Of course, extrapolating from your previous comments, you will ignore all my points and claim it's all Ubisoft's fault because there will be cases when it's Ubisoft's fault, and call my generalization, meant solely to try and get the point I'm trying to make through to you, idiotic. If you could just admit that the hackers are even partially to blame, we wouldn't be having this argument.

What YOU don't seem to realize is that I don't give two craps about whether or not Ubi made their system DDOS resistant. What bothers ME, and what should bother you, is that Ubi made a game that prevents you from playing when their servers are down. It doesn't matter how or why they are down, what matters is that Ubi made a game that literally prevents you from enjoying the product you paid for when their servers are down.

I realize just fine that you don't give a crap, because unlike you, I actually bother to read what the other person is saying.

As for your ignorant comment that it doesn't bother me: Ubisoft's DRM DOES bother me.

What ALSO bothers me is that you're saying that it doesn't bother me, despite repeated remarks by me that it does, in fact, bother me.

What ALSO bothers me is that you say the fact they made this system means it doesn't matter if people DDOS the SHIT out of it, it's still 100% Ubisoft's fault, and not that of the people who decide to DDOS it, which amounts to saying "it's Ubisoft's fault hackers don't like their stupid system and therefore want to prevent you from being able to play their game legally, and not at all the hackers' fault". Blame isn't mutually exclusive, and Ubisoft's stupid DRM doesn't mean nothing else is important at all. If I can normally play the game X% of the time, and hackers deliberately reduce X, then the hackers are NOT WITHOUT BLAME.

In the instances where the combination of Ubisoft's crappy DRM and a bunch of attackers DDOSing Ubisoft's server leads to me being unable to play the game, the attackers are PART OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM. But hey, if you can't even see me saying I don't like the DRM, I guess you can't see that either.

I don't like the DRM. I don't like that people consider me being unable to legally play the game I paid for, a necessary sacrifice, either. I ESPECIALLY don't like that people say I had it coming for not pirating. Those who cause paying customers to suffer in order to have their way, are no better than Ubisoft.

"If I can normally play the game X% of the time, and hackers deliberately reduce X, then the hackers are NOT WITHOUT BLAME."

Of course not, but if X is below 100% that's still Ubi's fault, whether X is reduced by a game-crashing bug or because you don't have stable internet access. Difference being, you can complain to Ubi about bugs, what would you do in the latter scenario? Move somewhere with stable internet access? Buy an Xbox?

"Of course" not? That's not what Valdearg has been saying: he seems pretty adamant that it's "of course", not "of course not".

Like I've said before, the DRM sucks, but that doesn't mean I should be punished by hackers for being willing to put up with it.

The attacks revealed the system sucks. I get it. That doesn't absolve the attackers of denying 5% of the playerbase access to the game.

More attacks may lead to the crappy DRM being withdrawn (which would mean Ubisoft either says "fuck all y'all" to its paying customers, or release the DRM-canceling patch). I get it. That doesn't mean I have to thank the attackers for what they're doing, or be happy about being a "casualty of war" or a "necessary sacrifice".

"Like I've said before, the DRM sucks, but that doesn't mean I should be punished by hackers for being willing to put up with it."

Out of curiosity, why were you willing to put up with it? Did you believe there would be no problems? Personally, I tried AC2 for a while and it seemed like a great game, but I will not buy a sp game that depends on such a large number of outside variables and I will most certainly not support the precedence it sets.

"The attacks revealed the system sucks. I get it. That doesn't absolve the attackers of denying 5% of the playerbase access to the game."

No it doesn't, but in my view the DDoS attacks interfering with players is just the first major manifestation of people unable to play due to the DRM. Of course you'd be angry at the attackers, but I still think it makes more sense to see things a bit less narrowly and to be angry at Ubi for making it possible for hackers to interfere with your single-player gaming at all.

And of course you won't be happy about it, but if you're going to do anything about it, you can either try to stop the attackers DDoS'ing (and make sure neither your internet nor Ubi's servers will ever fail) or to get Ubi to remove the DRM. (Or remove the DRM yourself and thus break the law while sending the signal that you're happy to accept measures like these, which seems like the worst of both worlds.) I choose the latter by simply not buying the game, and if in the future DRM like this is the norm, I guess I'll be playing Jagged Alliance until the disk disintegrates, without worrying about my internet connection.

I bought the game because I don't have a PS3 or 360, my internet connection is reliable enough that I'll still be able to play most of the time, and I really wanted to play the game. I expected server issues, but not DDOS attacks.

"Less narrowly"? I'm not the one blaming only one party in this matter. I'm simply trying to get through to people who say "downtimes will happen, and only the fact that downtimes mean you can't play matters, so it's always 100% Ubisoft's fault when downtimes happen, even if a third party deliberately caused said downtimes".

Get Ubi to remove the DRM? So in the end it comes down to this: because of these attacks, I'm being forced to choose between pirating or actively trying to get Ubisoft to change the DRM? How is this any different from what DRM does? You decide not to play the game? Fine by me. People decide to pirate, or buy then pirate, the game? Not really my business. But the reason people hate DRM is that it makes it harder for paying customers to play than if they were to pirate the game, and if these attacks continue, that is exactly what the attackers are doing too, yet somehow they're heroes for it. I fail to see how intimidating, through criminal acts, either Ubisoft into changing the DRM, or paying customers into a choice between pirating and trying to convince Ubisoft to change the DRM, is heroic. The reason any analogy I apply to this appears ridiculous is because the situation itself is ridiculous. And I am not going to fight for a change in a DRM simply because hackers will bully me if I don't.

I do apologise, English isn't my first language, I was imprecise. Should have said "in a larger context" rather than "less narrowly" I guess. What I meant was that in this instance the blame lies with whoever is DDoS'ing but also with Ubi, since they created a situation where your sp game depends on Ubi's servers in the first place. I never said downtimes were always 100% Ubi's fault, but the fact that you can't play your game when their server's are down undoubtedly is.

I don't think I ever called the attackers heroic nor did I comment on the quality of your analogies. I certainly don't condone the DDoS attacks, whether they work towards a change in Ubi's DRM policy or not. Anyway. You should 'fight' (a bit too strong a word for the act of not buying a game, no?) for a change in DRM because it is (apparently) completely ineffective, inconveniences only those with legit copies and (if it stays) sets a precedent I don't even want to think about.

But if you'd rather complain about the DDoSers instead of the DRM, your call.

English IS my first language and I was confused for half the post thread. I suppose I can understand that the outage is Ubisoft's fault with the line of reasoning that their DRM design possesses the weakness that a hacker *could* block legit customers from playing. It's a design flaw, I get it.

I also hold to the fact that for this outage the hackers are 100% at fault. I also believe that the hackers shouldn't be fucking with lawful paying customers.

""downtimes will happen, and only the fact that downtimes mean you can't play matters, so it's always 100% Ubisoft's fault when downtimes happen, even if a third party deliberately caused said downtimes".

That isn't a direct quote that I've used, and I've certainly not seen that quote used by anyone else.

My argument has not ONCE been that Ubi is responsible for their server downtimes, but rather Ubi's abusive DRM is responsible for the situation where you aren't able to enjoy your game because of the server outages. Yeah, the hackers caused the downtimes, but they sure as hell aren't responsible for the fact that you can't play your game while Ubi's servers are down. That blame lies SQUARELY on Ubisoft's shoulders.

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.

PHX Corp: I launched my spotify account today, and I kinda went a little overboard with adding music03/31/2015 - 3:59pm

Sora-Chan: Con't. Games like AC are a pain to someone like me who likes to play games in order. So when a game gets too many releases too quickly, it puts me off. Only exceptions are games that have no interconnected underlying stories like the FF games.03/31/2015 - 2:53pm

Sora-Chan: Wikipedia has rarely let me down on matters like this. But yeah... AC needs a break.. like two.. or three... or eight years.03/31/2015 - 2:51pm

Conster: There's 9 already?! I think I played 1, 2, and the ones inbetween 2 and 3.03/31/2015 - 2:23pm

Sora-Chan: Con't There are now Nine... of just the main entries into the series. There are 13 more in the "other games" department.03/31/2015 - 2:15pm

Sora-Chan: I tried to get into AC. Was having a decent time with the first one, at which point they had already released three titles. Then a fourth came out... then a fifth... the wall kept growing before I could finish the first.03/31/2015 - 2:14pm

Daniel Lewis: I think ubisoft should give AC a break before it's milked to death,and i'm a big fan of the games03/31/2015 - 1:15pm

Daniel Lewis: The only thing said i disagree with is the final quote on Men's experiences are seen to be universal but women are gendered,though doesn't anita say that games with male protagonists are male power fantasies,so in turn both are gendered03/31/2015 - 1:08pm

Daniel Lewis: i found the video to be much better than any of the TvW series and it's about time the positive women are put in the spotlight03/31/2015 - 1:06pm

Daniel Lewis: So feministfrequency released a positive female character video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmj2yJNUmQ03/31/2015 - 1:05pm

Daniel Lewis: I think the guy who made the direct leak said it was an april fools joke when a real one was announced03/31/2015 - 12:43pm

MaskedPixelante: No way Nintendo would let information like that get out. Remember, they shut down a memoir about the localization of Earthbound by enforcing a 20 year old NDA on the author.03/31/2015 - 12:42pm

james_fudge: Conster: the larger issue is that Ind. does not protect LGBTQ+ people under state law03/31/2015 - 12:11pm

PHX Corp: @MP I think it is confirmed(not an April Fools joke) http://mynintendonews.com/2015/03/31/nintendo-direct-confirmed-for-wednesday-april-1st/03/31/2015 - 12:00pm

Conster: Apparently Pence intends to amend SB101 so denying service isn't allowed - without explicitly protecting LGBT+ and while still allowing the many other things you can get away with now if it's motivated by your religious beliefs.03/31/2015 - 11:53am

MaskedPixelante: http://mynintendonews.com/2015/03/30/rumour-nintendo-direct-on-april-1st/ A supposed full leak of tomorrow's Nintendo Direct, so you can all laugh and laugh about how wrong it is.03/31/2015 - 11:35am

PHX Corp: http://kotaku.com/why-a-tekken-7-character-is-being-called-a-phoney-1694724959 Why a Tekken 7 Character Is Being Called a Phoney03/31/2015 - 10:08am

Michael Chandra: Argh. Anyway, I'm glad that move was made. Wonder if it counts, can he just declare it like that? 03/31/2015 - 9:27am